Things you cannot say without raising security concerns...

[john smith]

Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."

Yesterday, a single engine GA pilot was intercepted, forced to land and
was greeted by 20 federal agents. As he was overflying a military base,
he was communicating with the controllers. When queried as to his
destination, he responded that he could not disclose that information
because he was employed in a hostile work environment and that
disclosing the location could give his employers competition a business
advantage. It seems the controller only heard the word "hostile" and
immediately notified the security apparatus.

Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
interpreted out of context.

[El Maximo]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...

>
> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
> interpreted out of context.

When my son was in pre-school, I showed him a trick where you stand in a
doorway and press your arms against the doorframe for a minute. After a
minute is done, relax your arms, and step out of the doorway. Your arms will
begin to rise.

The next day in school, he told his teacher "My father made me move my warms
when I didn't want to".

Two weeks ago, I went to a paintball range with another son. The next day in
Spanish class they were discussing the past preterit tense. When asked what
he was doing at 6:30 the previous evening, he replied "I was shooting my
father's boss".

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Jun 14, 12:58 pm, john smith > wrote:
> Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
> honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
> visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."
>
> Yesterday, a single engine GA pilot was intercepted, forced to land and
> was greeted by 20 federal agents. As he was overflying a military base,
> he was communicating with the controllers. When queried as to his
> destination, he responded that he could not disclose that information
> because he was employed in a hostile work environment and that
> disclosing the location could give his employers competition a business
> advantage. It seems the controller only heard the word "hostile" and
> immediately notified the security apparatus.
>
> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
> interpreted out of context.

Are you serious?

If a crew shows up with their cameras and lights and say they want to
'shoot', it must take someone with a poor command of English and some
paranoia to think that they meant 'shoot to kill'.

What surprises me is that ATC is falling for this too. In our local
area, we routinely 'shoot an approach into Wright Patterson AFB'.

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
> interpreted out of context.

Instead of cowering under the bed, you might want to work hard to protect your
freedom of speech. "Watching what you say" essentially throws that freedom
away.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> If a crew shows up with their cameras and lights and say they want to
> 'shoot', it must take someone with a poor command of English and some
> paranoia to think that they meant 'shoot to kill'.

A great many people have a poor command of English, even among native
speakers. About 1/3 of Americans are functionally illiterate.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> john smith writes:
>
>> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
>> interpreted out of context.
>
> Instead of cowering under the bed, you might want to work hard to protect
> your
> freedom of speech. "Watching what you say" essentially throws that
> freedom
> away.

Or we could all run away to France, like sniveling cowards.

[Jim Stewart]

john smith wrote:
> Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
> honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
> visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."
>
> Yesterday, a single engine GA pilot was intercepted, forced to land and
> was greeted by 20 federal agents. As he was overflying a military base,
> he was communicating with the controllers. When queried as to his
> destination, he responded that he could not disclose that information
> because he was employed in a hostile work environment and that
> disclosing the location could give his employers competition a business
> advantage. It seems the controller only heard the word "hostile" and
> immediately notified the security apparatus.
>
> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
> interpreted out of context.

Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
ring right. If I were overflying a military
base, the last thing I'd do is engage in a
conversation about competitive advantages
and hostile workplaces. If, for some un-
fathomable reason, I didn't want to reveal
my final destination, I'd simply give an
en-route airport. If I felt bad about the
borderline deception, I'd stop at the en-
route airport.

[gatt]

"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...

>> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
>> interpreted out of context.
>
> When my son was in pre-school, I showed him a trick

When I was in Pre-School my folks got a call from the school. Apparently, I
either mispronounced "Focke Wulfe" or she'd never heard of such a thing.
Threatened to wash my mouth out with soap, but called my
guardian--grandfather, who was a B-17 vet--instead.

The old man was proud. I still have book I'd gotten it from somewhere:
"Color Treasury of Model Airplanes"

-c

[tjd]

On Jun 14, 4:01 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
> I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
> ring right.

It sounds silly, but nevertheless is apparently true:

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/148115.html

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

Actually, good point, anything bankrupt terrorsit boi says is a security
concern..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> john smith writes:
>
>> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
>> interpreted out of context.
>
> Instead of cowering under the bed, you might want to work hard to
> protect your freedom of speech. "Watching what you say" essentially
> throws that freedom away.


A code you live by, obviously.


Bertie

[Jose]

> When asked over the radio what his destination was, the pilot, a 10-year-plus veteran with commercial airlines and private industry, said he preferred not to say.
> Mann said that under the circumstances the pilot was not required to give a destination.
> “He didn’t say hijack. … He was trying to explain why he didn’t have to give his destination,” Mann said.
> “We work in a hostile business environment,” he said, and competitors could try to use such information to steal clients.
> The pilot was speaking about a “hostile takeover” of a company, said Maj. Roger Yates of the Clay County Sheriff’s Department.
> The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard, but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said.

I'd say the authorities did the right thing not to disregard these
comments. If you are the pilot of a small airplane, and an armed
passenger attempts to hijack it (unlikely, but not impossible), you may
want to hint your condition to ATC without giving away to the passenger
that you are alerting them. That way they can be ready when you land.

Granted, this particular set of comments is a bit oblique, but it might
be what the pilot thought would keep the passenger off guard. Then, to
avoid hearing ATC say "are you being hijacked?", change frequencies.
The passenger might know about 7700 - ATC doesn't know whether this is
the case.

Now, an F16 interception is probably the wrong response. But I suspect
it hasn't been thought through.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

> Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
> I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
> ring right. If I were overflying a military
> base, the last thing I'd do is engage in a
> conversation about competitive advantages
> and hostile workplaces. If, for some un-
> fathomable reason, I didn't want to reveal
> my final destination, I'd simply give an
> en-route airport. If I felt bad about the
> borderline deception, I'd stop at the en-
> route airport.

DOUBLE TAKE
Pilot's talk of business triggers fighter escort
Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:50 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- F-16s intercepted a small plane after officials
misinterpreted a phrase uttered by the pilot as his aircraft flew over
military airspace: hostile takeover.

The pilot was talking about business, the plane's owner said. But a
frantic air-traffic controller couldn't confirm that because the pilot
had turned off his radio, said Maj. Roger Yates of the Clay County
sheriff's office.

Within minutes, federal authorities scrambled the fighter jets to
intercept the plane Monday evening just outside of Oklahoma City. It was
escorted to the Clay County airport.

Once the plane was on the ground, more than a dozen armed federal agents
and tactical deputies surrounded it. Federal authorities, who
interviewed the pilot for two hours, said Tuesday that there was no
threat to anyone and no charges would be filed.

The plane's owner, Dr. Kenneth E. Mann, said the pilot was heading back
to Kansas City after leaving him in Oklahoma, where Mann is a visiting
physician at several hospitals. Neither he nor authorities would
identify the pilot.

Authorities said the pilot was flying over Vance Air Force Base in Oklahoma.

When asked what his destination was, the pilot said he preferred not to
say because competitors could use such information to steal clients.
Mann said the pilot was concerned because he works "in a hostile
business environment."

"Mistakes happen," Mann said, "and in the times we live in after 9/11,
it's better to overreact than not react at all."

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On Jun 14, 12:58 pm, john smith > wrote:
>> Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
>> honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
>> visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."
>>
>> Yesterday, a single engine GA pilot was intercepted, forced to land
>> and was greeted by 20 federal agents. As he was overflying a
>> military base, he was communicating with the controllers. When
>> queried as to his destination, he responded that he could not
>> disclose that information because he was employed in a hostile work
>> environment and that disclosing the location could give his
>> employers competition a business advantage. It seems the controller
>> only heard the word "hostile" and immediately notified the security
>> apparatus.
>>
>> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
>> interpreted out of context.
>
> Are you serious?
>
> If a crew shows up with their cameras and lights and say they want to
> 'shoot', it must take someone with a poor command of English and some
> paranoia to think that they meant 'shoot to kill'.
>
> What surprises me is that ATC is falling for this too. In our local
> area, we routinely 'shoot an approach into Wright Patterson AFB'.

Is there anything in the first paragraph that John wrote that says he showed
up with a crew, camera or light?


But, I have never been asked by TSA why I was traveling. Customs yes, TSA
never.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

tjd wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:01 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>> Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
>> I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
>> ring right.
>
> It sounds silly, but nevertheless is apparently true:
>
> http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/148115.html


OK, Now I understand what happened. ATC didn't understand what was said and
couldn't contact the pilot to clear it up.

"The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard,
but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said."

[Viperdoc]

The worst thing you could say is: I am a friend of Anthony Atkielski, aka
MXSMANIC.

[Rich Ahrens]

john smith wrote:
> Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
> honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
> visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."

Yet another overblown internet legend:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/31/mike_figgis_that_tsa.html

[Judah]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in news:1181848354.174171.196960
@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> If a crew shows up with their cameras and lights and say they want to
> 'shoot', it must take someone with a poor command of English and some
> paranoia to think that they meant 'shoot to kill'.

Actually, your description of "who it takes" accurately matches many TSA
agents that I have observed in my travels.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
. net...
> The worst thing you could say is: I am a friend of Anthony Atkielski, aka
> MXSMANIC.

That would not cause any action against you. You'd simply be disregarded as
a pranker, because everyone knows he HAS no friends!
Crash Lander
--
http://straightandlevel1973.spaces.live.com/
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
>> interpreted out of context.
>
> When my son was in pre-school, I showed him a trick where you stand in a
> doorway and press your arms against the doorframe for a minute. After a
> minute is done, relax your arms, and step out of the doorway. Your arms
> will begin to rise.
>
> The next day in school, he told his teacher "My father made me move my
> warms when I didn't want to".
>
> Two weeks ago, I went to a paintball range with another son. The next day
> in Spanish class they were discussing the past preterit tense. When asked
> what he was doing at 6:30 the previous evening, he replied "I was shooting
> my father's boss".

When my daughter was going into high school, it fell to me to take her to
the doctor for her innoculations. As it was, she had to have two of them.

For here being brave, I promised to stop at a frozen custard stand on the
way home.

Shocked hell out of the counter attendant when I said she'd "...just got
shots", of which I suspect she missed the last "s"..

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> tjd wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 4:01 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>>> Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
>>> I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
>>> ring right.
>>
>> It sounds silly, but nevertheless is apparently true:
>>
>> http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/148115.html
>
>
> OK, Now I understand what happened. ATC didn't understand what was said
> and couldn't contact the pilot to clear it up.
>
> "The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard,
> but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said."
>
He's flying over an AF base and turns off his radio?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
> > tjd wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 4:01 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> >>> Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
> >>> I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
> >>> ring right.
> >>
> >> It sounds silly, but nevertheless is apparently true:
> >>
> >> http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/148115.html
> >
> >
> > OK, Now I understand what happened. ATC didn't understand what was said
> > and couldn't contact the pilot to clear it up.
> >
> > "The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard,
> > but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said."
> >
> He's flying over an AF base and turns off his radio?

I like the bit about, "As a courtesy, the pilot informed the air traffic
tower at the base that he was entering the base¹s airspace."

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had
>> > heard,
>> > but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said."
>> >
>> He's flying over an AF base and turns off his radio?
>
> I like the bit about, "As a courtesy, the pilot informed the air traffic
> tower at the base that he was entering the base¹s airspace."

Good manners are SOOO important.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
> > tjd wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 4:01 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> >>> Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
> >>> I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
> >>> ring right.
> >>
> >> It sounds silly, but nevertheless is apparently true:
> >>
> >> http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/148115.html
> >
> >
> > OK, Now I understand what happened. ATC didn't understand what was said
> > and couldn't contact the pilot to clear it up.
> >
> > "The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard,
> > but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said."
> >
> He's flying over an AF base and turns off his radio?

Once one reports clear of the CDAS there is not longer any requirement
to remain on frequency.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> tjd wrote:
>>>> On Jun 14, 4:01 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>>>>> Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
>>>>> I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
>>>>> ring right.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds silly, but nevertheless is apparently true:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/148115.html
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, Now I understand what happened. ATC didn't understand what was
>>> said and couldn't contact the pilot to clear it up.
>>>
>>> "The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had
>>> heard, but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said."
>>>
>> He's flying over an AF base and turns off his radio?
>
> Once one reports clear of the CDAS there is not longer any requirement
> to remain on frequency.

I didn't say there was. The point is that the controller heard him say
something that made him think there was a problem. To confirm he tried to
contact him and he didn't answer. This would have magnified the concern he
already had.

What do you think would have happened to the controller if he had just blown
off his concern and the aircraft had been hijacked? Keep in mind that about
90% of the post 9/11 changes have been nothing more than CYA procedures.

[mike regish]

And if you run into a friend named Jack at the airport, don't yell out "Hi
Jack!"

mike

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
> honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
> visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."
>
> Yesterday, a single engine GA pilot was intercepted, forced to land and
> was greeted by 20 federal agents. As he was overflying a military base, he
> was communicating with the controllers. When queried as to his
> destination, he responded that he could not disclose that information
> because he was employed in a hostile work environment and that disclosing
> the location could give his employers competition a business advantage. It
> seems the controller only heard the word "hostile" and immediately
> notified the security apparatus.
>
> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
> interpreted out of context.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-15 12:28:56 -0700, "mike regish" > said:

> And if you run into a friend named Jack at the airport, don't yell out "Hi
> Jack!"

The little orange starfish that used to be the logo of Cingular was
informally called "Jack" by employees of that company. He looked like a
jack, aye? Trouble was, the temptation when you turned your phone on at
the airport was to say "Hi, Jack."

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-14 09:58:57 -0700, john smith > said:

> Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
> honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
> visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."

There was an airline pilot who really did get into trouble. TSA wanted
to confiscate his fingernail clippers. Exasperated, he said something
to the effect that he was the pilot -- he could fly the plane into the
ground without fingernail clippers. He was charged with making a
terrorist threat. Wonder whatever became of him?


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> What do you think would have happened to the controller if he had just blown
> off his concern and the aircraft had been hijacked? Keep in mind that about
> 90% of the post 9/11 changes have been nothing more than CYA procedures.

All they had to do was listen to the tapes.
They have them right there in the facility with them.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 15, 3:46 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-06-14 09:58:57 -0700, john smith > said:
>
> > Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
> > honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
> > visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."
>
> There was an airline pilot who really did get into trouble. TSA wanted
> to confiscate his fingernail clippers. Exasperated, he said something
> to the effect that he was the pilot -- he could fly the plane into the
> ground without fingernail clippers. He was charged with making a
> terrorist threat. Wonder whatever became of him?
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

He's dead... firing squad shot him!

[Montblack]

wrote)
> He's dead... firing squad shot him!


You see? This is why it drives me nuts when they card 50 year-olds for beer
or cigs. I tried to tell everyone what it would eventually lead to: blah,
blah, blah, "just following company policy," blah, blah ...but would anyone
listen to me? No!

And now this pilot's been shot. Dead.

Well, I hope you're all quite pleased with yourselves.


Paul-Mont
"My dear fellow! This isn't Spain ... this is England!"
A Man For All Seasons (1966)
Winner of six Academy Awards - including Best Picture

[Blueskies]

"Montblack" > wrote in message ...
> wrote)
>> He's dead... firing squad shot him!
>
>
> You see? This is why it drives me nuts when they card 50 year-olds for beer or cigs. I tried to tell everyone what it
> would eventually lead to: blah, blah, blah, "just following company policy," blah, blah ...but would anyone listen to
> me? No!
>
> And now this pilot's been shot. Dead.
>
> Well, I hope you're all quite pleased with yourselves.
>
>
> Paul-Mont
> "My dear fellow! This isn't Spain ... this is England!"
> A Man For All Seasons (1966)
> Winner of six Academy Awards - including Best Picture
>

The king is dead...Long live the king!

[Chris W]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> john smith writes:
>>
>>> Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
>>> interpreted out of context.
>> Instead of cowering under the bed, you might want to work hard to
>> protect your freedom of speech. "Watching what you say" essentially
>> throws that freedom away.
>
>
> A code you live by, obviously.
>

Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in sensitive
situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING to do with free
speech.



--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:58:57 -0400, john smith wrote:

> The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."


I've a number of friends that are actors, and one flew out to LA for a
period of time a while back. When I asked him why he'd be away, he said
he wanted to be out there for "pilot season".

I told him to let me know when it was over; that I'd be hiding under my
bed until then.

- Andrew

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in sensitive
> situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING to do with free
> speech.

Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship. While there might be
_extremely limited_ circumstances in which such censorship might be justified,
engaging in it just to protect yourself from a government that is no longer
willing to respect your freedom is a very dangerous choice. What you don't
use, you lose, and faster than you might think.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Chris W writes:
>
>> Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in sensitive
>> situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING to do with
>> free speech.
>
> Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship.


No it isn't, autisitc boi


Bertie

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship.

You've got some pretty strange definitions there, Anthony.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 18, 2:47 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Chris W writes:
> > Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in sensitive
> > situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING to do with free
> > speech.
>
> Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship. While there might be

If you and your children were at your grandmother's house for
Thanksgiving dinner, would you say, "Hey Ganny, Pass the ****ing
butter"?

Watching what you say in various settings is good judgement, not
censorship.


> _extremely limited_ circumstances in which such censorship might be justified,
> engaging in it just to protect yourself from a government that is no longer
> willing to respect your freedom is a very dangerous choice. What you don't
> use, you lose, and faster than you might think.

[El Maximo]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> If you and your children were at your grandmother's house for
> Thanksgiving dinner, would you say, "Hey Ganny, Pass the ****ing
> butter"?

Happens every time someone finished basic training in time for Thanksgiving.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 18, 2:47 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Chris W writes:
>> > Don't be ridiculous. Choosing your words carefully in
>> > sensitive
>> > situations, so as not to be misunderstood, has NOTHING
>> > to do with free speech.
>>
>> Choosing your words carefully is essentially censorship.
>> While there might be
>
> If you and your children were at your grandmother's house
> for
> Thanksgiving dinner, would you say, "Hey Ganny, Pass the
> ****ing butter"?
>
> Watching what you say in various settings is good
> judgement, not censorship.

Actually, it's not hard to imagine MaxManiac saying that.

And then arguing back when she reprimanded him.